with the london olympics just a kiss away, much attention has been paid to performance enhancing drugs. so much is asked of athletes nowadays, it wouldn’t surprise me if they ALL doped. it’s sad competition is so hyper-firece that everyone seems to be doing it and an honest athlete doesn’t have a chance in hell of winning whatever contest in which they may be entered.

to wit, frank schleck, cyclist from luxembourg, tested positive for the diuretic Xipamide, which can be a masking agent for performance-enhancing drugs. he finished third in last year’s tour de france and his brother, andy, won the 2010 contest. at the time of the drug test, schleck was 18 minutes behind the leader, bradley wiggings (from the uk) and 12th in the overall standings. so if schleck *is* doping, and not even in the top 10, are the leaders doping more? or are they really better athletes?

[frank schleck (luxembourg) of team radioshack nissan, below]

and cyclists are oddly shaped creatures. they are stick insects with really strong legs. they have to keep their weight down to cycle faster. have you looked at any of them closely? they look emaciated. they look drawn, gaunt and pale. whilst cycling in the tour de france is likely one of the most demanding races ever conceived, one would think they would have the robust and healthy complexion of a superhero. is this pallor an artifact of doping? exhaustion?

i love to speculate. i do enjoy the tour de france, and am a fan of the schleck brothers. they have shown impressive teamwork and brotherly support in past races. it appears this mini scandal will spread and add more fuel to the lance armstrong fire. batten down the hatches, boys, you’re going to be under intense scrutiny.